Even if the product happens to become timely reviewed by the pur-
chasing committee, there's no telling what the decision may be.
Administrators demand, and rightfully so, high levels of evidence of
a product's effectiveness before acquisition. Industry, in an effort to
prove a product's worth, often produce a white paper, or scientific
treatise extolling the virtues of a device or instrument. The problem is
this pseudoscientific work was usually funded by the vendor's compa-
ny and has more bias than CNN. So it behooves the surgeon to pro-
vide good evidence that the product you desire:
• saves time;
• will be used by surgeons x, y and z as well;
• isn't some passing fad (remember lasers anyone?); and
• is reasonably priced (an arbitrary term).
Even if you check all these boxes, approval isn't imminent.
Personal request
Our facility requires that we surgeons hand-deliver a product-request
form to the head nurse. These voluminous forms contain more data-
entry points than John D. Rockefeller's tax return, but thankfully the
product rep usually fills them out to save docs time (before I hand the
form in to the head nurse, I review it to be sure the rep didn't describe
the arthroscopic shaver I rated as "very good" as "the best I have ever
seen.").
Thankfully my institution is responsive in the interest of patient
care. If I make enough noise over a new capital expenditure, chances
are approval will ultimately follow.
Now back to my case. Nurse, the 1987 drill bit, please.
OSM
Dr. Kelly (johndak4@gmail.com) is an orthopedic surgeon/sports-shoulder
specialist who practices in Philadelphia, Pa.
D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 6 • O U T PA T I E N TS U R G E R Y. N E T • 1 2 9
